PrepTest 126, Section 4, Question 20
People who have specialized knowledge about a scientific(30 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- AThe more complicated(28 more words not shown)
- BThe more a(36 more words not shown)
- CAppointing an impartial(28 more words not shown)
- DExperts who give(17 more words not shown)
- EExpert witnesses in(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why are the knowledgeable people being excluded? Perhaps their opinions would carry too much weight with the other jurors, or perhaps someone selecting the jury doesn't want to face their questions. Those are possibilities, not explanations the passage establishes.
What the passage does establish is the exclusion. Then it jumps to unfairness. Does a jury need members who already have specialized knowledge to reach a fair decision? We need a reason that excluding them makes the process unfair, not just the observation that they are excluded.
What we’re looking for
For the weaken question, I'd look for a reason a fair trial doesn't require experts on the jury. The answer could show that their absence needn't harm fairness, or even give us a reason their presence might create a problem.
Working the answers
- A
This raises a problem with excluding knowledgeable jurors: the remaining jurors may struggle to understand complicated testimony. That supports the author's concern rather than weakening it. We need a reason to question the link between exclusion and unfairness.
- BCorrect
More knowledge about the issue makes a juror more likely to favor one side before hearing the case. That gives us a reason excluding such jurors could protect fairness: it reduces the risk of selecting people who have already taken a side. Expertise isn't necessarily an unqualified benefit on this account.
B doesn't say every expert is biased or that excluding experts guarantees a fair trial. It weakens the argument by showing a possible fairness advantage to the very exclusion the author treats as evidence of unfairness.
- C
Problems with using an arbitrator don't establish whether a jury is fair. These are different ways of settling a dispute. An alternative procedure could be unfair while jury trials were fair, or both could have problems. C leaves the argument about excluding knowledgeable jurors untouched.
- D
These experts are witnesses giving testimony, not jurors deciding the case. Their caution about possible error doesn't explain why excluding people with specialized knowledge from the jury would preserve or damage fairness. Keep the roles separate even though both involve expertise.
- E
The cost of hiring expert witnesses is also a different issue from who serves on the jury. A party's inability to pay a witness might raise its own concern, but it doesn't show that excluding knowledgeable jurors is compatible with fairness. It doesn't weaken the specific reasoning here.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.